Term limits: the reform that backfired.
In this thriller, a gutsy Missouri House Speaker takes on voter-approved term limits . . .no wait. He does that in this editorial. We don't know what the book is about.
On Nov. 3, 1992, Missouri voters overwhelming approved a constitutional amendment imposing eight-year limits on terms of members of the Missouri House and Senate. Shortly after the polls closed, Tom Mericle, then the executive director of Common Cause-Missouri, made this prediction:
“[This will lead to] a bunch of neophyte legislators having to rely on special interest money, lobbyists and bureaucrats to help them get to know and understand how government works in Jefferson City.”
Give that man a cigar. Everything he predicted has come true. Term limits, which were supposed to end “politics as usual,” only have made things worse. Combined with the Legislature’s decision two years ago to remove limits on campaign donations, the result is outside influence in staggering amounts.
Legislative leaders used to be chosen on the basis of seniority and political savvy. Now, with the clock ticking as soon as a legislator takes his seat, leadership jobs and committee chairmanships often go to whomever can raise the most money fastest for the election campaigns of his colleagues.
Consider state House Republican Floor Leader Steven Tilley, who represents a district in Perryville. He wants to move up to speaker in 2011. He’s already raised nearly $500,000 for his 2010 re-election campaign, most of which he won’t need, but which he can pass out to his buddies.
Much of that money comes from special interests, including $100,000 from conservative activist Rex Sinquefield and $100,000 from a political committee connected to former GOP House Speaker Rod Jetton, now a full-time political consultant.
It’s not really coincidence that many special interest bills get fast-tracked for consideration, which is why the FBI was poking around the Capitol this year, investigating allegations of “pay-to-play” deals.
When a complicated bill comes before the legislators, it generally is written by and vetted by lobbyists and lawyers for those outside interests. Consider Senate Bill 228 from last session, which would have overturned a 1976 law that forbids utilities from charging customers for construction costs of power plants until the plants go on line.
The bill was hideously complicated. Lawmakers depended utterly on lobbyists for Ameren Corp. of St. Louis to tell them what was in it. The bill was laid aside only after consumer groups and this editorial page disclosed the bill’s potential hidden costs to consumers.
Now comes, of all people, House Speaker Ron Richard, R-Joplin, whose campaign received at least $15,000 from Ameren and a man whose own top legislative aide runs a political consulting service, to suggest that “voters made a mistake” when they passed the term limits amendment in 1992.
“There’s always a vacuum up here,” Mr. Richard said this week at a meeting with reporters. “There’s always someone seeking power. If the legislative branch doesn’t get it, forces outside the building might set policy.”
We agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Richard, except for his use of the word “might.” Forces outside the building already set policy.
Term limits passed by a 3-to-1 margin in 1992; there’s no evidence that voters are prepared to rethink the issue. The idea sounds good, and most folks never get past the sound bite.
The only real way to return power to the people is to reimpose campaign finance limits and get rid of the loophole that allow “forces outside the building” to wash contributions through political committees. We hope Mr. Richard will join the cause.
Finally, some sanity. I was against term limits from the start, favoring instead campaign finance reform. It made no sense to throw someone out of office who was doing a good, moral job just because his or her time ran out.
In fact, I would argue for public financing of political campaigns. Those who would believe we don’t pay for them already are kidding themselves. A large part of their cost is ultimately passed along by the corporations and others in their products and/or services. At least this way we would control the campaign cash, to some extent. The newspapers and radio and television stations could contribute by giving the candidates equal space and time.
At the time I understood the thinking behind term limits, people were angry and the media led by many statewide papers pushed this agenda into the public eye. What has resulted is a fine mess. Funny but Missourians have always had a term limitation, it was called the ballot box.
EJ - Right on. However I suspect you’ll hear ear breaking screaming from the media if they all of the sudden have to give air time away instead of selling it as they do now. They make way too much money now on campaigns. I don see them willingly giving up that cash.
Ridiculous. The lack of term limits leads to the perpetuation of the professional political class. I would push it a step farther and ban former lawmakers from being employed by the state for some period after leaving office. I would also eliminate pensions and benefits for lawmakers. The problem is simply there are a lot of these professional politicians who view politics as their job. When we staff our legislature with people from the real world, real world problems will get fixed. If the gravy train were shut down, only the principled would run and the weak, easily led by bureaucrats and lobbyists would not be a problem.
For all you liberals who don’t like term limits, just think of the it like the death tax: not allowing power to be concentrated with a small group of people.
By the way, Vince Flynn is Glenn Beck’s favorite author (besides Glenn Beck).
jjk… Ever heard of voting a politician out? It’s a simple concept.
EJ-exactly, I thought we always had term limits. We called them elections.
I agree with the assessment that there have been many ethical lapses in House Leadership. Rex Sinquefield’s chief lobbyist purchased an airplane for Majority Leader Steve Tilley, and now Tilley wants to be Speaker. Could be an appearance of impropriety.
“Ever heard of voting a politician out?”
Not such a simple concept when an entrenched political machine takes hold.
As with Teddy Kennedy.
As with the Daley machine in Chicago.
Almost with the Clintons.
You don’t think Obama slid to the top of the Democrat ticket on his own merits, do you?
Teddy — never close with the Clintons — wanted Bill&Hillary cut-off and
Mayor Daley wanted Barack out of Illinois politics.
Two political machines collaborated to squish Hillary and put an inexperienced State Senator in the White House.
jjk-
I think you’re exactly right, which is why I’m running for the Missouri House in 2010. I came up with 10 campaign promises, and they include:
3. I will not accept contributions from special interests.
4. I will voluntarily abide by the campaign contribution limits.
5. I will not accept a government pension.
6. I will not accept the per diem paid to legislators.
You can see the rest of my promises at my website.
Steven Sieber